Open JelleZijlstra opened 1 year ago
connorjburgin
commented
1 year ago Is this comparing strictly to the species dataset downloadable online? I'll be sure to note these. Before we move to the synonym list, I think we should have a Zoom call discuss how best to deal with them.
JelleZijlstra
commented
1 year ago Yes, this is the online downloadable dataset. I took a brief look at the names file you shared and it does seem a formidable task that we should discuss over Zoom first. Probably we should do something like this:
connorjburgin
commented
1 year ago I went through and matched as many synonym names as I could based on the original lists (although there are certainly some mistakes), so that most of the MDD names with matches have an ID number that corresponds on there to the ones on your database. I'm also updating the MDD taxonomy on that spreadsheet, so that we would be able to directly match them in your new taxonomy. We'll need to definitely talk about this in zoom, but ultimately, I think we'll be mostly taking your dataset (with exception to those that we have that you don't), as you have most of ours, and it is better vetted at this point.
JelleZijlstra
commented
1 year ago Some more on authors. This is still only for valid species, not for all names. I looked only at names where the number of authors is different between our databases. On my side this helped me fix a number of cases where I had the wrong author list; the following are the cases where I think MDD got it wrong:
Already mentioned above:
connorjburgin
commented
1 year ago I'm working on incorporating your comments still, but I'll be sure to fix these!
connorjburgin
commented
1 year ago Commenting back on some of the spelling changes you suggested that I'm either not making for the MDD or am skeptical of and need clarification:
Cephalophus silvicultor vs. silvicultrix (-) – Agreed that the name is originally spelt ‘silvicultrix’ but Grubb, 2004 treats the name as an adjective, which is also considered an adjective here: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/silvicultrix (I know, Wikipedia isn’t the best place to go, but I think it’s applicable here). However, in agreement with having it be silvicultrix, it is a third-declension adjective, which would mean it does not change to with the generic gender. However, it may be in prevailing usage, which would put a wrench in using silvicultrix. The last publication I can find that used silvicultrix spelt it ‘sylvicultrix’, it was St. Leger, 1936, Proc. Zool. Soc. London and Allen’s African Mammal Book used ‘silvicultor’. Using Google Scholar also only brings of 12 results for ‘Cephalophus silvicultrix’ and 48 for ‘Cephalophus sylvicultrix’, so it may be a good argument to say its in prevailing use. Grubb, P. (2004). Controversial scientific names of African mammals. African Zoology, 39(1), 91-109.
Globicephala macrorhyncha vs. macrorhynchus (-) – I’m not to sure which it really is personally (I need to find a good source to base my assumptions of ‘noun in apposition vs. adjective’ on), but Rice, 1977 states the following: “The specific name is usually spelled macrorhyncha, but it is a noun in apposition, not an adjective, so must retain its original gender.” So I’m assuming this is the publication that shifted the name from ‘macrorhyncha’ to ‘macrorhynchus’ based on the assumption that it is a noun in apposition and must match the original spelling. I also think that it's been pretty well established in the marine mammal community at this point, so I think it should stay as macrorhynchus to avoid confusion within that community. Rice, D. W. (1977). A list of the marine mammals of the world (Vol. 711). Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service.
Myoictis wavica vs. wavicus (-) – I wasn’t able to find a single publication that’s ever used ‘wavica’, but it does seem to be an adjective derived from a noun as you suggested. It’s essentially in prevailing use to use wavicus, so I don’t really think it’s okay to change it. I went to the r/Latin subreddit for some advice and got the following response, which makes me lean in the direction of interpreting it as a noun since there is no etymology section in the original description and it was under a feminine genus when described: “I think you are correct in saying that the epithet wavicus is adjectival if it is indeed using the suffix -icus meaning "belonging to". However, if there is any way that the name can be interpreted as a noun AND the original usage was ambiguous as to whether it should be treated as a noun or an adjective (meaning the etymology section doesn't specify, but since this is 1947 taxonomy, I'm guessing it doesn't), then by the ICZN the name is to be treated as a noun and the specific epithet retains the -us ending regardless of the gender of the generic name. The fact that the original combination used -icus and not -ica with a feminine genus could be interpreted as intention for the name to be used as a noun but again that is only if the name can possibly be interpreted as a noun or an adjective.”
Caluromysiops irrupta vs. irruptus (-) – Same issues as M. wavicus/wavica, but I’m less certain about the intentional use of irrupta (haven’t looked at it het); regardless, I don’t think it should be changed given the long standing use of irrupta.
Lagothrix lagothricha vs. lagotricha (-) – I agree that ‘lagotricha’ is likely the correct spelling given that it’s the earlier name in the original publication and that it seems to be more grammatically correct (could be wrong about that though), but the paper that made the change was Fooden, 1963, which stated the following: “In Humboldt's (1812) original publication, the name of this species is spelled lagotricha on page 322 and lagothricha on page 354. The spelling lagothricha is adopted here as the correct original spelling, in accordance with Article 32b and Article 24a(i) of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (Stoll et al., eds., 1961).” This was based on an earlier version of the code, but I wanted to know what you thought about this before I fully decided on the change. Fooden, J. (1963). A revision of the woolly monkeys (genus Lagothrix). Journal of Mammalogy, 44(2), 213-247.
Hipposideros swinhoei vs. swinhoii (-) – Looked into this one a bit further and I think it’s in prevailing use at this point. Hill, 1963 suggested that swinhoei was the correct spelling, although he did not reference and earlier work that suggested the spelling emendation before him. I’m linking to the page in Hill, 1963 that suggests the use of swinhoei, which is probably an unjustified emendation that has become the more used spelling. I’m not to sure what to do about at this point though, because I haven’t found any significant publications using the ‘swinhoii’ spelling. If you have any more insight or other publications, I’d love to see them. Currently asking BatNames what they think too. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/2340818
Desmalopex leucoptera and microleucoptera vs. leucopterus (-) – I think we should stick with the masculine forms for now personally; the feminine forms have never been used to my understanding and prevailing use might be argued in this case.
Nyctimene minuta vs. N. varius (+/-) – Given the universal treatment of Nyctimene as masculine, I would rather leave varius as masculine rather than feminine for now; but if you feel strongly about this one, it should be published and discussed more.
Pteropus vetula vs. P. vetulus (+) – I would also argue for prevailing use at this point… I’ll bring it up with Batnames to see what they say.
Crocidura greenwoodae vs greenwoodi – will be changing this one back to greenwoodi after some conversations with someone at the IUCN (haven’t decided on what to do with the rest of the -orum additions we’ve talked about but whatever Batnames decides for Pteropus gilliardorum will guide my answer there).
Sorex monticolus vs. S. monticola (-) – I think I’m going to follow you in this and go with monticolus now, as you seem to be write.
Suncus varilla vs. S. varillus (-) – I think I’ll actually stick with the original spelling of varilla for this one for now because it is ambiguous and I’d rather treat it as a noun until more information is available.
JelleZijlstra
commented
1 year ago Commenting back on some of the spelling changes you suggested that I'm either not making for the MDD or am skeptical of and need clarification:
Cephalophus silvicultor vs. silvicultrix (-) – Agreed that the name is originally spelt ‘silvicultrix’ but Grubb, 2004 treats the name as an adjective, which is also considered an adjective here: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/silvicultrix (I know, Wikipedia isn’t the best place to go, but I think it’s applicable here). However, in agreement with having it be silvicultrix, it is a third-declension adjective, which would mean it does not change to with the generic gender. However, it may be in prevailing usage, which would put a wrench in using silvicultrix. The last publication I can find that used silvicultrix spelt it ‘sylvicultrix’, it was St. Leger, 1936, Proc. Zool. Soc. London and Allen’s African Mammal Book used ‘silvicultor’. Using Google Scholar also only brings of 12 results for ‘Cephalophus silvicultrix’ and 48 for ‘Cephalophus sylvicultrix’, so it may be a good argument to say its in prevailing use. Grubb, P. (2004). Controversial scientific names of African mammals. African Zoology, 39(1), 91-109.
Thanks, wasn't aware of that listing of the word as an adjective. Apparently it only appears once in a Catullus poem. Agree that at this point there's a reasonable argument to be made to treat silvicultor as a justified emendation through prevailing usage. I will make this change.
Globicephala macrorhyncha vs. macrorhynchus (-) – I’m not to sure which it really is personally (I need to find a good source to base my assumptions of ‘noun in apposition vs. adjective’ on), but Rice, 1977 states the following: “The specific name is usually spelled macrorhyncha, but it is a noun in apposition, not an adjective, so must retain its original gender.” So I’m assuming this is the publication that shifted the name from ‘macrorhyncha’ to ‘macrorhynchus’ based on the assumption that it is a noun in apposition and must match the original spelling. I also think that it's been pretty well established in the marine mammal community at this point, so I think it should stay as macrorhynchus to avoid confusion within that community. Rice, D. W. (1977). A list of the marine mammals of the world (Vol. 711). Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service.
It seems like an adjective to me, but in general this is a very ambiguous area. I am going to stick with the adjectival form for now but will think about this more.
Myoictis wavica vs. wavicus (-) – I wasn’t able to find a single publication that’s ever used ‘wavica’, but it does seem to be an adjective derived from a noun as you suggested. It’s essentially in prevailing use to use wavicus, so I don’t really think it’s okay to change it. I went to the r/Latin subreddit for some advice and got the following response, which makes me lean in the direction of interpreting it as a noun since there is no etymology section in the original description and it was under a feminine genus when described: “I think you are correct in saying that the epithet wavicus is adjectival if it is indeed using the suffix -icus meaning "belonging to". However, if there is any way that the name can be interpreted as a noun AND the original usage was ambiguous as to whether it should be treated as a noun or an adjective (meaning the etymology section doesn't specify, but since this is 1947 taxonomy, I'm guessing it doesn't), then by the ICZN the name is to be treated as a noun and the specific epithet retains the -us ending regardless of the gender of the generic name. The fact that the original combination used -icus and not -ica with a feminine genus could be interpreted as intention for the name to be used as a noun but again that is only if the name can possibly be interpreted as a noun or an adjective.”
This and Caluromysiops, Nyctimene, Desmalopex below are similar situations where following grammar rules strictly would go against prevailing usage. I am going to stick with the corrected forms for now but this is worth thinking about more.
We'll likely see more such cases when we compare the two databases again, as I ran some checks that corrected a number of additional cases of gender misalignment.
Also just wanted to note that in Vandeleuria you did accept a gender correction based on historical data that clearly went against prevailing usage. Kerivoula is actually also masculine by the same argument as was used for Vandeleuria, which would be even more disruptive.
Lagothrix lagothricha vs. lagotricha (-) – I agree that ‘lagotricha’ is likely the correct spelling given that it’s the earlier name in the original publication and that it seems to be more grammatically correct (could be wrong about that though), but the paper that made the change was Fooden, 1963, which stated the following: “In Humboldt's (1812) original publication, the name of this species is spelled lagotricha on page 322 and lagothricha on page 354. The spelling lagothricha is adopted here as the correct original spelling, in accordance with Article 32b and Article 24a(i) of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (Stoll et al., eds., 1961).” This was based on an earlier version of the code, but I wanted to know what you thought about this before I fully decided on the change. Fooden, J. (1963). A revision of the woolly monkeys (genus Lagothrix). Journal of Mammalogy, 44(2), 213-247.
Thanks, I hadn't noticed that Humboldt also used the lagothricha spelling. In this case, it makes sense to accept Fooden's paper as a First Reviser action and use the lagothricha spelling. I am making this change.
Hipposideros swinhoei vs. swinhoii (-) – Looked into this one a bit further and I think it’s in prevailing use at this point. Hill, 1963 suggested that swinhoei was the correct spelling, although he did not reference and earlier work that suggested the spelling emendation before him. I’m linking to the page in Hill, 1963 that suggests the use of swinhoei, which is probably an unjustified emendation that has become the more used spelling. I’m not to sure what to do about at this point though, because I haven’t found any significant publications using the ‘swinhoii’ spelling. If you have any more insight or other publications, I’d love to see them. Currently asking BatNames what they think too. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/2340818
There's probably a good argument for prevailing usage here yes. Just to add some data:
Sorry for the misleading citation of Hill (1963) in my earlier message; I must have missed the place where says swinhoei is "more correct".
Crocidura greenwoodae vs greenwoodi – will be changing this one back to greenwoodi after some conversations with someone at the IUCN (haven’t decided on what to do with the rest of the -orum additions we’ve talked about but whatever Batnames decides for Pteropus gilliardorum will guide my answer there).
Yes, I think it's worth thinking about all of these and treating them in a similar way. In addition to the cases I brought up there are a few more similar ones among fossils, synonyms, etc. Vespadelus douglasorum was originally douglasi.
connorjburgin
commented
1 year ago I’m testing if I reply over email on my phone if it’ll post on GitHub…
Just a quick comment on the Vandeleuria example, I think I’d like to revert that one for consistency with the others. I’m also talking to Batnames about reverting Pteropus vetula back to vetulus. Honestly, these spelling issues are the worst because they’re endless! They’re taking up most of my time as I try to update the MDD, but it’s kind of good because I’m a lot more familiar with these decisions and Latin now.
On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 9:26 AM Jelle Zijlstra @.***> wrote:
Commenting back on some of the spelling changes you suggested that I'm either not making for the MDD or am skeptical of and need clarification:
Cephalophus silvicultor vs. silvicultrix (-) – Agreed that the name is originally spelt ‘silvicultrix’ but Grubb, 2004 treats the name as an adjective, which is also considered an adjective here: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/silvicultrix (I know, Wikipedia isn’t the best place to go, but I think it’s applicable here). However, in agreement with having it be silvicultrix, it is a third-declension adjective, which would mean it does not change to with the generic gender. However, it may be in prevailing usage, which would put a wrench in using silvicultrix. The last publication I can find that used silvicultrix spelt it ‘sylvicultrix’, it was St. Leger, 1936, Proc. Zool. Soc. London and Allen’s African Mammal Book used ‘silvicultor’. Using Google Scholar also only brings of 12 results for ‘Cephalophus silvicultrix’ and 48 for ‘Cephalophus sylvicultrix’, so it may be a good argument to say its in prevailing use. Grubb, P. (2004). Controversial scientific names of African mammals. African Zoology, 39(1), 91-109.
Thanks, wasn't aware of that listing of the word as an adjective. Apparently it only appears once in a Catullus poem. Agree that at this point there's a reasonable argument to be made to treat silvicultor as a justified emendation through prevailing usage. I will make this change.
Globicephala macrorhyncha vs. macrorhynchus (-) – I’m not to sure which it really is personally (I need to find a good source to base my assumptions of ‘noun in apposition vs. adjective’ on), but Rice, 1977 states the following: “The specific name is usually spelled macrorhyncha, but it is a noun in apposition, not an adjective, so must retain its original gender.” So I’m assuming this is the publication that shifted the name from ‘macrorhyncha’ to ‘macrorhynchus’ based on the assumption that it is a noun in apposition and must match the original spelling. I also think that it's been pretty well established in the marine mammal community at this point, so I think it should stay as macrorhynchus to avoid confusion within that community. Rice, D. W. (1977). A list of the marine mammals of the world (Vol. 711). Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service.
It seems like an adjective to me, but in general this is a very ambiguous area. I am going to stick with the adjectival form for now but will think about this more.
Myoictis wavica vs. wavicus (-) – I wasn’t able to find a single publication that’s ever used ‘wavica’, but it does seem to be an adjective derived from a noun as you suggested. It’s essentially in prevailing use to use wavicus, so I don’t really think it’s okay to change it. I went to the r/Latin subreddit for some advice and got the following response, which makes me lean in the direction of interpreting it as a noun since there is no etymology section in the original description and it was under a feminine genus when described: “I think you are correct in saying that the epithet wavicus is adjectival if it is indeed using the suffix -icus meaning "belonging to". However, if there is any way that the name can be interpreted as a noun AND the original usage was ambiguous as to whether it should be treated as a noun or an adjective (meaning the etymology section doesn't specify, but since this is 1947 taxonomy, I'm guessing it doesn't), then by the ICZN the name is to be treated as a noun and the specific epithet retains the -us ending regardless of the gender of the generic name. The fact that the original combination used -icus and not -ica with a feminine genus could be interpreted as intention for the name to be used as a noun but again that is only if the name can possibly be interpreted as a noun or an adjective.”
This and Caluromysiops, Nyctimene, Desmalopex below are similar situations where following grammar rules strictly would go against prevailing usage. I am going to stick with the corrected forms for now but this is worth thinking about more.
We'll likely see more such cases when we compare the two databases again, as I ran some checks that corrected a number of additional cases of gender misalignment.
Also just wanted to note that in Vandeleuria you did accept a gender correction based on historical data that clearly went against prevailing usage. Kerivoula is actually also masculine by the same argument as was used for Vandeleuria, which would be even more disruptive.
Lagothrix lagothricha vs. lagotricha (-) – I agree that ‘lagotricha’ is likely the correct spelling given that it’s the earlier name in the original publication and that it seems to be more grammatically correct (could be wrong about that though), but the paper that made the change was Fooden, 1963, which stated the following: “In Humboldt's (1812) original publication, the name of this species is spelled lagotricha on page 322 and lagothricha on page 354. The spelling lagothricha is adopted here as the correct original spelling, in accordance with Article 32b and Article 24a(i) of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (Stoll et al., eds., 1961).” This was based on an earlier version of the code, but I wanted to know what you thought about this before I fully decided on the change. Fooden, J. (1963). A revision of the woolly monkeys (genus Lagothrix). Journal of Mammalogy, 44(2), 213-247.
Thanks, I hadn't noticed that Humboldt also used the lagothricha spelling. In this case, it makes sense to accept Fooden's paper as a First Reviser action and use the lagothricha spelling. I am making this change.
Hipposideros swinhoei vs. swinhoii (-) – Looked into this one a bit further and I think it’s in prevailing use at this point. Hill, 1963 suggested that swinhoei was the correct spelling, although he did not reference and earlier work that suggested the spelling emendation before him. I’m linking to the page in Hill, 1963 that suggests the use of swinhoei, which is probably an unjustified emendation that has become the more used spelling. I’m not to sure what to do about at this point though, because I haven’t found any significant publications using the ‘swinhoii’ spelling. If you have any more insight or other publications, I’d love to see them. Currently asking BatNames what they think too. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/2340818
There's probably a good argument for prevailing usage here yes. Just to add some data:
- Allen (1938:192) used swinhoii: Allen, G.M. 1938. The mammals of China and Mongolia. Part 1. Natural History of Central Asia 11(1):1-620.
- Dobson (1878:135) was probably the first to use swinhoei: Dobson, G.E. 1878-06-15. Catalogue of the Chiroptera in the Collection of the British Museum. Taylor and Francis, British Museum Catalogue, 567 pp.
Sorry for the misleading citation of Hill (1963) in my earlier message; I must have missed the place where says swinhoei is "more correct".
Crocidura greenwoodae vs greenwoodi – will be changing this one back to greenwoodi after some conversations with someone at the IUCN (haven’t decided on what to do with the rest of the -orum additions we’ve talked about but whatever Batnames decides for Pteropus gilliardorum will guide my answer there).
Yes, I think it's worth thinking about all of these and treating them in a similar way. In addition to the cases I brought up there are a few more similar ones among fossils, synonyms, etc. Vespadelus douglasorum was originally douglasi.
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/mammaldiversity/mammaldiversity.github.io/issues/35#issuecomment-1470242860, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APKNCPDEDQXLKAR3J6JYRA3W4HNRZANCNFSM6AAAAAAVAXAZTM . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: @.*** com>
--
Connor Burgin Ph.D. Student, Cook Molecular Evolution and Ecology Lab Department of Biology University of New Mexico
n8upham
commented
1 year ago You guys are both rocking it here — fun to be a fly on the wall for your conversation.
And yes, replying by email does post to Github! Cheers —n
On Mar 15, 2023, at 8:36 AM, Connor Burgin @.***> wrote:
I’m testing if I reply over email on my phone if it’ll post on GitHub…
Just a quick comment on the Vandeleuria example, I think I’d like to revert that one for consistency with the others. I’m also talking to Batnames about reverting Pteropus vetula back to vetulus. Honestly, these spelling issues are the worst because they’re endless! They’re taking up most of my time as I try to update the MDD, but it’s kind of good because I’m a lot more familiar with these decisions and Latin now.
On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 9:26 AM Jelle Zijlstra @.***> wrote:
Commenting back on some of the spelling changes you suggested that I'm either not making for the MDD or am skeptical of and need clarification:
Cephalophus silvicultor vs. silvicultrix (-) – Agreed that the name is originally spelt ‘silvicultrix’ but Grubb, 2004 treats the name as an adjective, which is also considered an adjective here: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/silvicultrix https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/silvicultrix__;!!IKRxdwAv5BmarQ!b878SwkAx834drR6PVLLFS5LzP5kKkC07wYlJyXfR1OO4ZY_q-0FDNiYw8XI89wRKWbFrJc8-E7qKO4HNy0KohrtMag$ (I know, Wikipedia isn’t the best place to go, but I think it’s applicable here). However, in agreement with having it be silvicultrix, it is a third-declension adjective, which would mean it does not change to with the generic gender. However, it may be in prevailing usage, which would put a wrench in using silvicultrix. The last publication I can find that used silvicultrix spelt it ‘sylvicultrix’, it was St. Leger, 1936, Proc. Zool. Soc. London and Allen’s African Mammal Book used ‘silvicultor’. Using Google Scholar also only brings of 12 results for ‘Cephalophus silvicultrix’ and 48 for ‘Cephalophus sylvicultrix’, so it may be a good argument to say its in prevailing use. Grubb, P. (2004). Controversial scientific names of African mammals. African Zoology, 39(1), 91-109.
Thanks, wasn't aware of that listing of the word as an adjective. Apparently it only appears once in a Catullus poem. Agree that at this point there's a reasonable argument to be made to treat silvicultor as a justified emendation through prevailing usage. I will make this change.
Globicephala macrorhyncha vs. macrorhynchus (-) – I’m not to sure which it really is personally (I need to find a good source to base my assumptions of ‘noun in apposition vs. adjective’ on), but Rice, 1977 states the following: “The specific name is usually spelled macrorhyncha, but it is a noun in apposition, not an adjective, so must retain its original gender.” So I’m assuming this is the publication that shifted the name from ‘macrorhyncha’ to ‘macrorhynchus’ based on the assumption that it is a noun in apposition and must match the original spelling. I also think that it's been pretty well established in the marine mammal community at this point, so I think it should stay as macrorhynchus to avoid confusion within that community. Rice, D. W. (1977). A list of the marine mammals of the world (Vol. 711). Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service.
It seems like an adjective to me, but in general this is a very ambiguous area. I am going to stick with the adjectival form for now but will think about this more.
Myoictis wavica vs. wavicus (-) – I wasn’t able to find a single publication that’s ever used ‘wavica’, but it does seem to be an adjective derived from a noun as you suggested. It’s essentially in prevailing use to use wavicus, so I don’t really think it’s okay to change it. I went to the r/Latin subreddit for some advice and got the following response, which makes me lean in the direction of interpreting it as a noun since there is no etymology section in the original description and it was under a feminine genus when described: “I think you are correct in saying that the epithet wavicus is adjectival if it is indeed using the suffix -icus meaning "belonging to". However, if there is any way that the name can be interpreted as a noun AND the original usage was ambiguous as to whether it should be treated as a noun or an adjective (meaning the etymology section doesn't specify, but since this is 1947 taxonomy, I'm guessing it doesn't), then by the ICZN the name is to be treated as a noun and the specific epithet retains the -us ending regardless of the gender of the generic name. The fact that the original combination used -icus and not -ica with a feminine genus could be interpreted as intention for the name to be used as a noun but again that is only if the name can possibly be interpreted as a noun or an adjective.”
This and Caluromysiops, Nyctimene, Desmalopex below are similar situations where following grammar rules strictly would go against prevailing usage. I am going to stick with the corrected forms for now but this is worth thinking about more.
We'll likely see more such cases when we compare the two databases again, as I ran some checks that corrected a number of additional cases of gender misalignment.
Also just wanted to note that in Vandeleuria you did accept a gender correction based on historical data that clearly went against prevailing usage. Kerivoula is actually also masculine by the same argument as was used for Vandeleuria, which would be even more disruptive.
Lagothrix lagothricha vs. lagotricha (-) – I agree that ‘lagotricha’ is likely the correct spelling given that it’s the earlier name in the original publication and that it seems to be more grammatically correct (could be wrong about that though), but the paper that made the change was Fooden, 1963, which stated the following: “In Humboldt's (1812) original publication, the name of this species is spelled lagotricha on page 322 and lagothricha on page 354. The spelling lagothricha is adopted here as the correct original spelling, in accordance with Article 32b and Article 24a(i) of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (Stoll et al., eds., 1961).” This was based on an earlier version of the code, but I wanted to know what you thought about this before I fully decided on the change. Fooden, J. (1963). A revision of the woolly monkeys (genus Lagothrix). Journal of Mammalogy, 44(2), 213-247.
Thanks, I hadn't noticed that Humboldt also used the lagothricha spelling. In this case, it makes sense to accept Fooden's paper as a First Reviser action and use the lagothricha spelling. I am making this change.
Hipposideros swinhoei vs. swinhoii (-) – Looked into this one a bit further and I think it’s in prevailing use at this point. Hill, 1963 suggested that swinhoei was the correct spelling, although he did not reference and earlier work that suggested the spelling emendation before him. I’m linking to the page in Hill, 1963 that suggests the use of swinhoei, which is probably an unjustified emendation that has become the more used spelling. I’m not to sure what to do about at this point though, because I haven’t found any significant publications using the ‘swinhoii’ spelling. If you have any more insight or other publications, I’d love to see them. Currently asking BatNames what they think too. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/2340818 https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/2340818__;!!IKRxdwAv5BmarQ!b878SwkAx834drR6PVLLFS5LzP5kKkC07wYlJyXfR1OO4ZY_q-0FDNiYw8XI89wRKWbFrJc8-E7qKO4HNy0KbqTvNb0$
There's probably a good argument for prevailing usage here yes. Just to add some data:
- Allen (1938:192) used swinhoii: Allen, G.M. 1938. The mammals of China and Mongolia. Part 1. Natural History of Central Asia 11(1):1-620.
- Dobson (1878:135) was probably the first to use swinhoei: Dobson, G.E. 1878-06-15. Catalogue of the Chiroptera in the Collection of the British Museum. Taylor and Francis, British Museum Catalogue, 567 pp.
Sorry for the misleading citation of Hill (1963) in my earlier message; I must have missed the place where says swinhoei is "more correct".
Crocidura greenwoodae vs greenwoodi – will be changing this one back to greenwoodi after some conversations with someone at the IUCN (haven’t decided on what to do with the rest of the -orum additions we’ve talked about but whatever Batnames decides for Pteropus gilliardorum will guide my answer there).
Yes, I think it's worth thinking about all of these and treating them in a similar way. In addition to the cases I brought up there are a few more similar ones among fossils, synonyms, etc. Vespadelus douglasorum was originally douglasi.
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/mammaldiversity/mammaldiversity.github.io/issues/35#issuecomment-1470242860 https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/mammaldiversity/mammaldiversity.github.io/issues/35*issuecomment-1470242860*3E__;IyU!!IKRxdwAv5BmarQ!b878SwkAx834drR6PVLLFS5LzP5kKkC07wYlJyXfR1OO4ZY_q-0FDNiYw8XI89wRKWbFrJc8-E7qKO4HNy0K1vzOARA$, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APKNCPDEDQXLKAR3J6JYRA3W4HNRZANCNFSM6AAAAAAVAXAZTM https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APKNCPDEDQXLKAR3J6JYRA3W4HNRZANCNFSM6AAAAAAVAXAZTM*3E__;JQ!!IKRxdwAv5BmarQ!b878SwkAx834drR6PVLLFS5LzP5kKkC07wYlJyXfR1OO4ZY_q-0FDNiYw8XI89wRKWbFrJc8-E7qKO4HNy0KMWF30uU$ . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: @.*** com>
--
Connor Burgin Ph.D. Student, Cook Molecular Evolution and Ecology Lab Department of Biology University of New Mexico — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/mammaldiversity/mammaldiversity.github.io/issues/35*issuecomment-1470264130__;Iw!!IKRxdwAv5BmarQ!b878SwkAx834drR6PVLLFS5LzP5kKkC07wYlJyXfR1OO4ZY_q-0FDNiYw8XI89wRKWbFrJc8-E7qKO4HNy0Km9ZFkuU$, or unsubscribe https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AC3WZU5JAHL27YELDRWDCA3W4HOYLANCNFSM6AAAAAAVAXAZTM__;!!IKRxdwAv5BmarQ!b878SwkAx834drR6PVLLFS5LzP5kKkC07wYlJyXfR1OO4ZY_q-0FDNiYw8XI89wRKWbFrJc8-E7qKO4HNy0Ks-DEaLU$. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
connorjburgin
commented
1 year ago I just noticed that Mazama nana, which was original described as Cervus nanus as you pointed out, might be in prevailing use as an adjective. What do you think Jelle, should we go through with the change to 'nanus' to match the original description since it is a noun, or should we go with prevailing use here? I'm starting to get really frustrated by prevailing use...
JelleZijlstra
commented
1 year ago I don't feel too strongly. If nothing else, it might make sense for you to stick with the current spelling so you can go ahead with the next MDD update. A couple of thoughts on this case:
connorjburgin
commented
1 year ago Hmm, I think I prefer switching it to match the original for all these species at this moment. I’ll need to note the Cercartetus one, I hadn’t noted it before. I’m not sure how prevailing use holds with some of these, so making these changes seems adequate for now. There are a few changes that I want more perspective on, and I’ll set up a draft email to the nomenclature committee to ask them about it.
On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 3:55 PM Jelle Zijlstra @.***> wrote:
I don't feel too strongly. If nothing else, it might make sense for you to stick with the current spelling so you can go ahead with the next MDD update. A couple of thoughts on this case:
- Apparently HMW actually went with Mazama nanus: http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03A087C4FFE6FFE7FA73FD52EF18F7E6. I don't see a lot of publications that followed it since 2011 though.
- I'm not sure about treating it as an adjective in prevailing usage, since there's no such thing as an adjective nanus. Perhaps it's allowable though.
- If we do argue for prevailing usage here, maybe we should also switch back to Mesocapromys nanus under prevailing usage.
- This issue also affects Cercartetus nanus, which was originally Phalangista nana, and therefore should logically now be Cercartetus nana.
- There are other nomenclatural problems with Mazama nana. I am not sure it is an available name (see my comments under http://hesperomys.com/n/27687, bottom of the page). In addition it is possibly preoccupied by Cervus nanus Kaup, 1834 ( http://hesperomys.com/n/84737), though I haven't yet tracked down the original description of that name.
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/mammaldiversity/mammaldiversity.github.io/issues/35#issuecomment-1478638875, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APKNCPFFTI7MRH3AYPHHHJTW5IPVNANCNFSM6AAAAAAVAXAZTM . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: @.*** com>
--
Connor Burgin Ph.D. Student, Cook Molecular Evolution and Ecology Lab Department of Biology University of New Mexico
JelleZijlstra
commented
1 year ago Sounds good. Unrelatedly, did you already get Metachirus aritanai (https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/mammalia-2021-0176/html)? It was just published in January.
connorjburgin
commented
1 year ago I did, it’s in the back end spreadsheet for the MDD already. We should make another thread specifically for new papers we come across.
On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 4:18 PM Jelle Zijlstra @.***> wrote:
Sounds good. Unrelatedly, did you already get Metachirus aritanai ( https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/mammalia-2021-0176/html)? It was just published in January.
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/mammaldiversity/mammaldiversity.github.io/issues/35#issuecomment-1478669907, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APKNCPESU2C6C2N5MYEHACLW5ISM3ANCNFSM6AAAAAAVAXAZTM . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: @.*** com>
--
Connor Burgin Ph.D. Student, Cook Molecular Evolution and Ecology Lab Department of Biology University of New Mexico
connorjburgin
commented
1 year ago I wanted to clarify some things.
I found out that in cases where names are changing for gender agreement, prevailing use does not apply to these cases. Thus, Caluromysiops irrupta should change to irruptus as you mentioned, as well as the Desmalopex example. Although, the Myoictes and Nyctimene examples I'm less confident on, as I'm not to sure wavica/us is an adjective and if Nyctimene is truly. I'll be back after more research... But this relates to a number of the changes we've discussed.
connorjburgin
commented
1 year ago Also, @JelleZijlstra, you mentioned that Kerivoula might be masculine. Would you mind elaborating on that a little? If so, we would need to make a pretty big change and I'd have to make the Batnames people really frustrated...
JelleZijlstra
commented
1 year ago It's for the same reason as Vandeleuria. The original description is here: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/2324282. It included a species named Kerivoula griseus, using the masculine adjectival form griseus (that species is apparently a synonym of Pipistrellus pipistrellus, but that doesn't matter). Therefore, by ICZN Art. 30.2.3, Kerivoula is to be treated as masculine. I am thinking of writing a petition to the ICZN to officially mark Kerivoula (and maybe Vandeleuria too) as feminine; I don't think anything good will come out of renaming all the species.
JelleZijlstra
commented
1 year ago Gray does also include a species V. picta (feminine), but it's pretty clear that name is being used in combination with Vespertilio (the previous generic assignment), not with Kerivoula. Kerivoula is also not a classical term (it's supposedly from a Sinhala word for bats).
connorjburgin
commented
1 year ago Yeah, I agree with the comment for Kerivoula. Vandeleuria it nowhere near as commonly used in the literature and the names are now getting used with that spelling following the HMW now, so I think I'm comfortable leaving that one in all honesty. But the Kerivoula one, I think that it would be pretty unstable to make that change. A similar case was made for Cryptotis a while back, which was gender fixed to masculine.
Another thing, I was given the following arguments against the use of Glauconycteris curryi, and I agree with them and will be using curryae.
Victor Van Cakenberghe - "Grubb (2004: 13) mentioned: " The authors did not explain how the specific name was formed but as there is no 'y' in Latin, the name' curryi' can be assumed to have been formed directly from the modern personal name and therefore, as it is the name of a woman, must be corrected to 'curryae' (Article 31.1.2, ICZN 1999)."
Against Jelle's argumentation (in Connor's comment) is the fact that the original description (as curryi) also dates from 2001 (and Eger and Schlitter (2001) is the only publication I was able to find that used curryi as a valid name). So, there was hardly any time for curryi to be accepted and the prevailing use has been for curryae. An additional argument might be that the change has been published by Judith Eger, who was one of the people describing it and as such might be interpreted as a correction of an error she was aware of."
Charles Francis - "The one exception to not changing an original spelling mentioned listed by Dubois (2007) is the situation where the name is unambiguously formed from a modern name that has not been Latinized. Victor provides a strong rationale that was the case: the fact that a Latinized name would not end in 'y' and perhaps more importantly that one of the original describers corrected the name. Furthermore, although only 22 years ago, prevailing use would seem relevant if everybody has accepted the emendation.
I thus favour curryae."
Conversely, there is some argumentation over gillardi/gillardorum by the Batnames community:
Andrea Cirranello - "gilliardi is correct; gilliardorum is an unjustified emendation. I think this should be changed to the correct original spelling. Charles makes an excellent point - I think we need to figure out what "prevailing usage" means when we have incorrect spellings or agreement and possibly publish one of our Zenodo opinions for that definition. I believe it would be much appreciated by the taxonomic community. In the context of reversal of precendece: In accordance with the purpose of the Principle of Priority [Art. 23.2], its application is moderated as follows:
23.9.1. prevailing usage must be maintained when the following conditions are both met:
23.9.1.1. the senior synonym or homonym has not been used as a valid name after 1899, and
23.9.1.2. the junior synonym or homonym has been used for a particular taxon, as its presumed valid name, in at least 25 works, published by at least 10 authors in the immediately preceding 50 years and encompassing a span of not less than 10 years. I am pretty sure this is not meant to apply to our situation here where we have a change in ending that is still attributed to the original author, but it is interesting to think about. FishBase defines "prevailing usage" as
In taxonomy, that usage of the name which is adopted by at least a
substantial majority of the most recent authors concerned with the
relevant taxon, irrespective of how long ago their work was published. From 33.5 of the Code "In any case of doubt whether a different subsequent spelling is an emendation or an incorrect subsequent spelling, it is to be treated as an incorrect subsequent spelling (and therefore unavailable), and not as an emendation." I should also say that I agree with the comments that Dubois (2009) has made regarding prevailing usage where he feels this should be restricted to things like Mus musculus and Homo sapiens, which are widely known by non-specialist users, rather than names that only taxonomists use - such as this one. "
Charles Francis - "See my note above under H. swinhoei / swinhoii.
As noted above, Dubois (2007) suggests that the code gives flexiblity to form genitives in a wide variety of ways, and therefore, it is not possible to argue that a name was incorrectly formed except in a very limited number of cases. On this basis, virtually any change to a name to derive a different genitive would be an unjustified emendation.
Unlike Viktor, I would not call Dubois (2007) a 'proposal / suggestion', but rather an interpretation of the wording of the code. I do agree that the changes in wording to the code proposed by Dubois to enhance clarity have not been adopted, but I do not know whether anybody has formally approached ICZN to request the change. In any case, reading the code, I would have to agree with Dubois (2007) that there is, in fact, no provision in the code to change supposedly incorrect genitives -- in fact, article 32.5.1 explicitly states that incorrect latinization is not to be considered an inadvertent error.
under: 31.1.1. A species-group name, if a noun in the genitive case formed from a personal name that is Latin, or from a modern personal name that is or has been latinized, is to be formed in accordance with the rules of Latin grammar.
As noted by Dubois (2007) the rules of Latin grammar are complex and many different endings are possible, and the endings proposed under 31.2.1 are not relevant to 31.1.1.
Furthermore, under 32.5.1. "If there is in the original publication itself, without recourse to any external source of information, clear evidence of an inadvertent error, such as a lapsus calami or a copyist's or printer's error, it must be corrected. Incorrect transliteration or latinization, or use of an inappropriate connecting vowel, are not to be considered inadvertent errors.
On this basis, it seems clear that the change to Pteropus gilliardorum was an unjustified emendation.
The only exception relates to: 33.2.3.1. when an unjustified emendation is in prevailing usage and is attributed to the original author and date it is deemed to be a justified emendation.
We thus need to determine what 'prevailing usage' means. I personally think this should be determined based not just on the number of papers, but the unanimity of the perspective, and the length of time over which the emendation has been adopted. In this case, I believe the change was proposed by Flannery (1995), so 25 years ago, but during that period several authors have not accepted the change, so it is certainly not unanimous.
However, to avoid the risk of flip-flopping, I would suggest we hold off on the change until our group has an accepted definition of 'prevailing usage'. I would, however, suggest including a note to suggest this could be considered an unjustified emendation. "
Victor Van Cakenberghe - "In the literature I found Pteropus gilliardorum mentioned by: Almeida et al. (2014, 2020), Aplin and Opiang (2012), Aziz et al. (2021), Benda (2010b), Beolens et al. (2009), Carvajal and Adler (2005), Conenna et al. (2017a), Flannery (1995b), Fleming and Racey (2009), Han et al. (2016), Marsh et al. (2022), Martyn et al. (2012), Mendes (2011), Meng et al. (2016), Neaves et al. (2018), Nesi et al. (2021), Phalen et al. (2017), Regan et al. (2015), Riccucci and Lanza (2014a), Richards and Gamui (2011), Rolland et al. (2014), Simmons (2005b), Simmons and Ciranello (2023), Strahan and Conder (2007), Tayor and Tuttle (2019), Tsang (2015), Tsang et al. (2019 [for 2020]), Wieringa (2022), Wiles and Brooke (2009).
Pteropus gillardi: Honacki et al. (1982), Koopman (1993a), Lapointe et al. (1999b), Mendes (2011), Mickleburgh et al. (1992), Scanlon et al. (2014b), Van Deusen (1969), Vendetti et al. (2011).
This would indicate that 'gilliardorum' is indeed in prevailing use, but that should not be an argument.
Dubois' arguments might make sense, but this is only a proposal/suggestion not an article nor a recommendation. Furthermore, I would assume that the ICZN might accept this suggestion, but in view of the stability of the names rule that this might only be valid for names given (or corrected) after a specific year (as is done in various other articles).
I'm in favour of Pteropus gilliardorum.
See also Guedes et al. (2023), which I have not seen (but do not agree with, but that is another discussion).
Guedes, P., Alves-Martins, F., Arribas, J.M., Chatterjee, S., Santos, A.M.C., Lewin, A., Bako, L., Webala, P.W., Correia, R.A., Rocha, R. Ladle, R.J. (2023). Eponyms have no place in 21st-century biological nomenclature - Nature Ecology & Evolution. Doi: 10.1038/s41559-023-02022-y"
This has opened my eyes a little bit to my opinion on the change of these kind of names, and I'll have to evaluate them case by case. Crocidura greenwoodi in my opinion should be retained rather than greenwoodae, as the HMW did. However, I may have different opinions on some of the other names, but will need to evaluate them individually. I'm also really trying to settle on a definition of prevailing use, because it's getting rough trying to argue about it.
connorjburgin
commented
1 year ago Also, here is a note on Notopteris neocalidonicus (you use neocalidonica) from Charles Francis: "According to the code, note the line in blue: 30.1.4.5. A genus-group name that is or ends in a Latin word of which the ending has been changed takes the gender appropriate to the new ending; if the ending is such as not to indicate a particular gender, the name is to be treated as masculine.
On this basis, Notopteris should be treated as masculine, and neocaledonicus is correct."
I'm going to retain Notopteris neocalidonicus for now.
JelleZijlstra
commented
1 year ago Thanks for sharing the feedback from BatNames. I would actually caution against treating these on a case-by-case basis too much: that can lead to special pleading and to arguments that aren't grounded in the Code. For example, the argument that curryae may be emended because it was unambiguously based on a non-Latin personal name would seem to apply equally to "Gilliard". It is not true that Latin names can never consider "y", as this letter can appear in Greek loanwords (one of the consuls for the year 163 was named "Bithynicus").
The stronger argument for curryae is how quickly the name was corrected (in the next issue of the same volume). Under Art. 32.5.1.1 of the Code, that does provide a strong argument that the emendation is justified in this case.
So instead of name-specific arguments, I would want to look at all names that fit this pattern and try to come up with a consistent set of criteria based on the text of the Code. Here's a list of all names in my database where a patronym appears to have been emended: https://gist.github.com/JelleZijlstra/89085754cff7558e612a2acd0afc4da7. In addition to the ones we already discussed, there are several among fossil mammals (and a few more among nonmammals included in my DB). There is one more among living mammals that I currently accept at the emended form: Vespadelus douglasorum, which was originally douglasi.
Honestly I'd prefer to work on improving taxonomic coverage and resolving missing names instead though; these spelling issues can wait.
As for Notopteris, I agree that treating it as masculine is the technically correct approach. I kept it as feminine out of concern for preserving usage, but if the bat specialists are on board with changing, I'll make the change too. I'll add that the technical argument for making this change is very similar to that for Myoictis wavicus: the original spelling of Notopteris neocaledonica used the feminine form in combination with a masculine genus, and the specific epithet in both cases uses the -icus suffix.
connorjburgin
commented
1 year ago I see what you mean, getting to nitty-gritty with it is what's making it really difficult to make these decisions, especially trying to match between the Batnames database and the MDD. The main reason I'm having issues going through these is because we are trying to make the MDD and Batnames databases match exactly, which means arguing about prevailing use and whether epithets are nouns or adjectives unfortunately.
I quickly looked through your list of patronym emendations and although I don't want to get to into the weeds with this, but there are a few that I would consider retaining the emendation as justified based primarily on prevailing use. Here's a list of species with a decision for what I'm going to do on the MDDs next update:
Crocidura anselli/ansellorum - emendation was in 1987 just after original description (both in volume 38) and looks to be in prevailing use regardless; I'll be retaining ansellorum based on prevailing use and Article 35.5.1.1.
Crocidura greenwoodi/greenwoodae - emendation by me (not really, Normand David did it in the galley proofs without me knowing) in 2018. I consider this an unjustified emendation and will be using greenwoodi on the MDD.
Pteropus gilliardi/gilliardorum - unjustified emendation not in prevailing use, using gilliardi.
Glauconycteris curryi/curryae - the emendation was in 2001 immediately after the original description and appears to be in prevailing use. I will be using curryae on the argument of prevailing use and in accordance with Article 35.5.1.1 (in the same volume).
Vespadelus douglasi/douglasorum - the emendation was in 1987 and original description in 1976. I would think this would be an unjustified emendation, but I feel that it is in prevailing use at this point. However, I'm curious if you have another reason for having it as the only one you accept? Will be retaining douglasorum since I can't find many publications that use douglasi.
Piliocolobus waldroni/waldronae - this is certainly an unjustified emendation and doesn't appear to be in prevailing use (plenty of pubs using either spelling), and I will make the change to waldroni on the MDD.
Aotus nancymai/nancymaae - this one is an unjustified emendation that doesn't appear to be in prevailing use; MDD already uses nancymai (this was a decision at the time made by Russel Mittermeier, I'm not sure what his logic was while retaining the other Primate patronym emendations).
Chiropotes utahicki/utahickae - same comment as Aotus nancymai. Retaining utahicki.
Lepilemur ahmansoni/ahmansonorum - unjustified emendation, although most publications use the emended spelling now; however, with how recent it is and that there are still recent papers refuting this change (e.g., Krell, F. T., & Marshall, S. A. (2017). New species described from photographs: yes? no? sometimes? A fierce debate and a new declaration of the ICZN. Insect Systematics and Diversity, 1(1), 3-19.). I will be changing to ahmansoni on the MDD.
Lepilemur grewcocki/grewcockorum- unjustified emendation, although most publications use the emended spelling now; however, with how recent it is and that there are still recent papers refuting this change (e.g., Krell, F. T., & Marshall, S. A. (2017). New species described from photographs: yes? no? sometimes? A fierce debate and a new declaration of the ICZN. Insect Systematics and Diversity, 1(1), 3-19.). I will be changing to grewcocki on the MDD.
Lepilemur hubbardi/hubbardorum- unjustified emendation, although most publications use the emended spelling now; however, with how recent it is and that there are still recent papers refuting this change (e.g., Krell, F. T., & Marshall, S. A. (2017). New species described from photographs: yes? no? sometimes? A fierce debate and a new declaration of the ICZN. Insect Systematics and Diversity, 1(1), 3-19.). I will be changing to hubbardi on the MDD.
Lepilemur jamesi/jamesorum- unjustified emendation, although most publications use the emended spelling now; however, with how recent it is and that there are still recent papers refuting this change (e.g., Krell, F. T., & Marshall, S. A. (2017). New species described from photographs: yes? no? sometimes? A fierce debate and a new declaration of the ICZN. Insect Systematics and Diversity, 1(1), 3-19.). I will be changing to jamesi on the MDD.
Lepilemur tymerlachsoni/tymerlachsonorum- unjustified emendation, although most publications use the emended spelling now; however, with how recent it is and that there are still recent papers refuting this change (e.g., Krell, F. T., & Marshall, S. A. (2017). New species described from photographs: yes? no? sometimes? A fierce debate and a new declaration of the ICZN. Insect Systematics and Diversity, 1(1), 3-19.). I will be changing to tymerlachsoni on the MDD.
Ochotona gromovi/gromovorum - this one's unjustified and not used at this point, plus, I already use gromovi.
In summary, I'll be changing them all to the original spelling except Crocidura ansellorum, Glauconycteris curryae, and Vespadelus douglasorum because of either Article 35.5.1.1 or through prevailing use.
Given that I am keeping Notopteris masculine, I will make the change to Myoictis wavicus to remain consistent. I'm also making the change for Nyctimene and Desmalopex as well for now, although I'm still waiting for opinions on it by Batnames (although after looking into them a good bit, I agree with you).
JelleZijlstra
commented
1 year ago Thanks, I think that's a good approach. I will change to curryae and ansellorum since they were emended in the same volume. With that I believe our databases will be in agreement for all cases in this category, which is nice.
As for Vespadelus douglasorum, I suppose I didn't change to douglasi because I used to believe these patronym emendations were always justified (since people kept making them), and I never went through and consistently applied my current understanding that these emendations are almost always unjustified. Possibly some more should be moved to the original spelling among the fossil ones, but right now I don't feel the need to make those changes. In the douglasi case, I think you're right that nobody is using the original spelling; I couldn't find any usage of the species name douglasi with the new genus name Vespadelus.
I ran a script to compare Hesperomys against the latest release of the MDD: https://gist.github.com/JelleZijlstra/0bb7845fdf451ebaffe7878ee140fd21. There's a lot of harmless small differences (e.g., different transcriptions of Russian names), and also a lot of cases where my database is wrong, so I have some more work to do to get the list down to something more manageable.
However, here are a few things I noticed where MDD seems incorrect:
Original name
Type specimen
There's a lot more I haven't looked at in depth yet. These are mostly very nitpicky issues, so let me know if you'd rather I don't file these.